Is there room to award the plaintiff subsistence damages?
In my opinion, the present case is not one of the exceptional cases in which it would be justified to award subsistence damages in favor of the plaintiff.
First of all, it cannot be said that only the breach of the duty of good faith on the part of the defendant caused the contract not to be signed. As stated, the contract was not signed because there was no complete conclusion and certainty.
Second, even if the plaintiff was entitled to subsistence compensation, the exercise of this right is subject to the principle of good faith on her part as well. The plaintiff or her counsel did not inform the opposing party that the process of selling the plaintiff's apartment in Kiryat Bialik was delayed until October 29,2024, and in fact, the plaintiff demanded to move forward with the signing of the contract only after she reached understandings with the buyer of her apartment regarding the terms of the sale of the apartment. The plaintiff was not entitled to assume that the defendant would wait until the terms of the sale of her apartment were formulated, with the expectation that at that time the defendant would be obligated to sell his apartment, whether or not he had full discretion.
Third, in the statement of claim, the plaintiff petitioned for "subsistence compensation", as she defined it, in the sum of ILS 171,314, "for the loss of a discount in the amount of ILS 170,000, which the defendant granted her in the price of the apartment, together with linkage and interest differentials as of October 30,2024..." (Section 2.2.2 of the statement of claim; see more: Provision of Section 11 of the Contracts Law (Remedies for Breach of Contract), 5731-1970). The difference to which the plaintiff was referring was the difference between the sum of ILS 2,030,000, the price of the apartment agreed upon by the parties, and ILS 2,200,000, the price of the apartment demanded by the defendant at the beginning of the negotiations.